As shown in Fig. REF  and Fig. REF , we compare the NoC performance (area, energy, and latency) of our FLASH with respect to the cmesh-NoC [1]} for 16 randomly selected networks from the search space for CIFAR-10 dataset and ImageNet dataset, respectively.
We observe that the mesh-NoC occupies on average only 37% area and consumes only 41% energy with respect to the cmesh-NoC.
Since the cmesh-NoC uses extra links and repeaters to connect diagonal routers, the area and energy with the cmesh-NoC are significantly higher than the mesh-NoC.
Additional links and routers in the cmesh-NoC result in lower hop counts than the mesh-NoC. However, the lower hop count reduces the latency at low congestion.
As the congestion in the NoC increases, the latency of the cmesh-NoC becomes higher than the mesh-NoC due to increased utilization of additional links. This phenomenon is also demonstrated in [2]}.
Therefore, the communication latency with the cmesh-NoC is higher than the mesh-NoC for most of the DNNs.
The communication latency with the mesh-NoC is on average within 3% different from the communication latency with the cmesh-NoC.
Moreover, we observe that the average utilization of the queues in the mesh-NoC varies between 20%-40% for the ImageNet dataset.
Furthermore, the maximum utilization of the queues ranges from 60% to 80%.
Therefore, the mesh-NoC is heavily congested.
Thus, our proposed communication optimization strategy outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches.
